Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration?
- 352 Downloads
This study reports findings from an experimental field study of scripted collaboration for net-based learning in the context of a one-semester university course on operating systems. In scripted collaboration, activities of learners are coordinated and guided according to particular rules, implemented via respective tools in the learning environment. Forty-two distributed groups of three students collaborated on five successive assignments employing the virtual learning environment CURE. Three collaborative tasks—brainstorming, clustering, and essay writing—were implemented as scripts with dedicated tools guiding the net-based collaborative process. Half of the groups collaborated via scripted task versions, and, as a control, half of the groups performed the tasks in a non-scripted manner. No general advantage of scripting was found concerning acquisition of knowledge; nor was overscripting observed. Collaborative scripting appears to be neither generally advantageous nor disadvantageous, but highly contingent on the particular content and task under consideration. Results suggest that scripting might be slightly more supportive in more complex tasks such as essay writing, in contrast to undemanding tasks such as brainstorming.
KeywordsComputer-supported collaborative learning Net-based learning Scripted collaboration
This research was supported by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG) under research grant HA 3130/2-1.
Thanks go to Till Schümmer and Sven Laaks for building and maintaining the system, and to Anja Haake and Lihong Ma for supporting and assessing learning groups.
- Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (Eds.). (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Carver, S. M. (2006). Assessing for deeper understanding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
- Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (Eds.). (2007a). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Greenberg, S., & Roseman, M. (2003). Using a room metaphor to ease transitions in groupware. In M. Ackermann, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Beyond knowledge management: Sharing expertise (pp. 203–248). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
- Haake, J. M., Haake, A., Schümmer, T., Bourimi, M., & Landgraf, B. (2004a). End-user controlled group formation and access rights management in a shared workspace system. In Proceedings of the ACM CSCW’2004, November 6-10, 2004 (pp. 554–563). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Haake, J. M., Schümmer, T., Haake, A., Bourimi, M., & Landgraf, B. (2004b). Supporting flexible collaborative distance learning in the CURE platform. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD-ROM), January 5–8, 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
- Hoppe, H. U., Ogata, H., & Soller, A. (Eds.). (2007). The role of technology in CSCL. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Jucks, R., Paechter, M., & Tatar, D. G. (2003). Learning and collaboration in online discourses. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4, 117–146.Google Scholar
- Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept Maps™ as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted collaboration in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in collaborative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Oehl, M., & Pfister, H. R. (2010). E-collaborative knowledge construction in chat environments. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Pfister, H.-R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 581–589). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional design. Theories and models (Vol. II). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 111–133.Google Scholar
- Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 15–37). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar